Jump to content

Talk:25 Water Street

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 02:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
25 Water Street
25 Water Street

There's an ALT hook I don't particularly encourage and haven't included as an option, but some sources claim that the building's design, including its narrow windows, was based on a punched card. This sounds too dumb to actually be true, though, so seems more like local lore repeated. Created by SnowFire (talk) and Epicgenius (talk). Nominated by SnowFire (talk) at 05:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/25 Water Street; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • @SnowFire and Epicgenius: New and long enough, Earwig detects no copyvios, QPQ done. What sources talk about the punched-card-like design? It's healthy to be skeptical, but if multiple sources say that and none explicitly question it, it shouldn't be excluded in the article since that's a form of original research. It would actually make a good hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess that's the penalty for mentioning it... [1] (same source as above) says "It was designed to look like a punch card and housed telecommunications offices and equipment", [2] says "The building was designed in the 1960s to look like a punched card, as a nod to the tech and telecommunications offices it housed" (a sentence so similar it might have been directly based on the Gothamist article). That said, we have editorial discretion here. These are two random sentences that could well be the result of a game of journalistic telephone. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and while I agree that it'd be cool to include if it true, I'm really not sold on it being true yet. Meanwhile, "biggest in the US" seems like a, well, bigger fact for a hook anyway. I'll go ahead and email the journalists and see if they are interested in responding as to where this fact came from, but even if it ends up included in the article, I'd personally lean toward the original hook anyway. SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an extraordinary claim, it seems quite reasonable that an architect would design a building in this way. Also, we don't have "editorial discretion" on Wikipedia, which would be original research, but we do assess whether sources are reliable or not. If those two sources aren't good enough for you, have you tried to find a contemporaneous source on the building's design (Newspapers.com is useful for this, which is free for experienced Wikipedians), or even one from an architecture-specific publication? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire and Antony-22: Just chiming in briefly, but newspapers.com doesn't have comprehensive coverage of Manhattan topics between the 1930s and the present; I'd say Newsday and the New York Daily News are the only two major publications on newspapers.com that cover Manhattan. The search results aren't great, since "4 New York Plaza" (the building's original address) is used on tons of advertisements and notices, including those for the Daily News which had offices there. However, I did find this source, which honestly has a ton of info that could be added to the article, including the windows' exact dimensions and the reasoning for the relative lack of windows. Epicgenius (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that sounds about right and as expected, it was to make air conditioning more efficient not a weird fancy about punch cards. I've integrated the source; a great find! (Although as a side note, the article mentions that the "contract price" was 2.4 million under estimate - but that's kinda vague. Whose estimate? Who got the saved money - the architecture firm, the building owners, someone else?) SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also did some searching myself and didn't find anything contemporaneous about a punch card design. This was the most relevant source I found, which interestingly says that the bricks we chosen to blend with surrounding 19th-century structures, all of which were soon demolished anyway. Hook checks out, so this is good to go. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) Nice find! I've integrated the 1979 source as well on the bricks. SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled from queue after this discussion at Errors:

  • ... that the largest office-to-residential building conversion in the United States is underway at 25 Water Street?
    It sounds like spin, doesn't it? Two references for the hook. One (Gothamist) has the disclaimer "according to its owners", the other a site called New York YIMBY says it's the largest "per unit count". I expect this also comes from the developers. According to this these are only plans awaiting approval, and the large number of units would involve some units without bedroom windows (which isn't allowed in New York). We shouldn't be stating this as fact in wikivoice. Secretlondon (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter source from August 2023 says that the developers "have announced plans" for a building conversion. I share your concern and suggest we pull the hook. Premeditated Chaos, is that ok with you? Schwede66 17:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, I'm sorry I missed it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the nomination back into the unapproved pile. Ping Secretlondon and Premeditated Chaos for info. Schwede66 23:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the existing hook is fine. Of course it's sourced to the owners - but that is the nature of a planned change, and this would seem a very difficult thing to "lie" about. Describing this as merely "announced plans" is wildly misleading - I can literally see the workers going at it, and there are pictures in the article of the renovation underway. It is not a planned renovation, it is a currently underway renovation. There was a $536 million loan to make this go. It's happening.
  • The Debevois source brought up by Secretlondon says: Though zoning regulations and building code hurdles remain, including density restrictions and the requirement of windows in bedrooms, Mayor Adams has pledged to reexamine some of these restrictions. This is nothing like saying that the renovation won't still happen and be the largest in the United States. It just means that there will be challenges in the future. I suppose the argument is that this is the largest office-to-residential conversion by unit count, and maybe the zoning regulations will require fewer, larger apartments, to compensate the window problem... but I'm still not sold that even in this possible scenario, it's a major problem with the hook. It's just... thought experiment. Suppose a total disaster happens and 25 Water ends up unfinished and abandoned like the Ryugyong Hotel. Then this hook would still be accurate in retrospect, IMO. That would mean that someone tried to do the largest office-to-residential conversion, it was indeed underway circa 2023, but it failed. The same should be true if zoning regulations require reshuffling of how many apartments get stuffed in.
  • I'm open to suggestions, but per above, the hook is accurately describing the current situation as stated in reliable sources, with the usual proviso that we don't have a crystal ball to see the future. But that's true of lots of hooks. SnowFire (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to move forward here. I actually dislike overly promotional hooks myself at DYK but disagree this in particular was a promotional hook (you can't buy condos or rent there yet!). This isn't the kind of meaningless critical babble like "Did you know Some Reviewer said Some Media Work was Totally Badass". There was nothing wrong with the original hook and I don't see a better one. I'll ping Secretlondon again - do you agree with the argument above? If not, what would make this hook qualify in your view to avoid controversy? I stated my case a long time ago above, but if I did find a brave person ready to promote again, I don't want just another trip back to ERRORS. SnowFire (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original hook failed at Errors, so I have struck it. Attempting to put it through again simply isn't going to fly, and will result in another trip back to Errors. If another hook cannot be proposed, then this nomination cannot proceed, and will be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Do you want to take over this and propose another hook? I honestly thought this had already closed permanently and didn't realize this was still considered live. I remain utterly baffled that a claim that is barely promotional at all (is number of apartments really a selling point? Wouldn't a promotional hook be more about how luxurious and fantastic it'd be?) is considered promotional, so therefore I'm unable to really fix this, because apparently any fact about the building is promotional or something. If you don't have any ideas either then we can just let it close, but up to you. (I mean, I guess I could go for a negative fact like the criticized windows, but that doesn't appear fair either, or really interesting.) SnowFire (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I can propose something like:
      • ALT2: ... that 25 Water Street was designed to blend in with historic brick buildings that no longer exist? Tauranac, John (1979). Essential New York : A Guide to the History and Architecture of Manhattan's Important Buildings, Parks, and Bridges. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp. 226–227.
      • ALT3: ... that parts of 25 Water Street had few windows to make it easier to air-condition computers? Dixon, John Morris (January–February 1970). "Bulwark In Lower Manhattan". Architectural Forum. Vol. 132, no. 1. pp. 62–67.
    • Maybe I can take a stab at expanding the page a bit if these don't work out. Epicgenius (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviewer needed to check the ALT2 and ALT3 hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Approve ALT2 and image I like ALT2 a lot as a hook, it's a pretty funny factoid for the chosen design of the building. As for the article, new enough when nominated, certainly more than long enough. The hook fact is cited in-line and the rest of the article is properly sourced. And the QPQ has been done. As noted at the beginning of this nomination, the image is a take it or leave it at the promoter's discretion if we're needing a hook image for a queue. Looks good to go! SilverserenC 20:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:25_Water_Street&oldid=1196986575"